Discouraging to see that there’s such a widespread lack of critical thinking in the US, although it looks like the majority is tired of the deniers, and will back the science based approach that the current administration supports.

Conservative billionaires used a secretive funding route to channel nearly $120 million to more than 100 groups casting doubt about the science behind climate change, the Guardian has learned.

The funds, doled out between 2002 and 2010, helped build a vast network of think tanks and activist groups working to a single purpose: to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a highly polarizing "wedge issue" for hardcore conservatives.

The millions were routed through two trusts, Donors Trust and the Donors Capital Fund, operating out of a generic town house in the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, DC. Donors Capital caters to those making donations of $1 million or more.

Whitney Ball, chief executive of the Donors Trust, told the Guardian that her organization assured wealthy donors that their funds would never by diverted to liberal causes.

Check out our original reporting on Donors Trust:

Exposed: The Dark-Money ATM of the Conservative Movement
Exclusive: Donors Trust, The Right's Dark-Money ATM, Paid Out $30 Million in 2011

"We exist to help donors promote liberty which we understand to be limited government, personal responsibility, and free enterprise," she said in an interview.

By definition that means none of the money is going to end up with groups like Greenpeace, she said. "It won't be going to liberals."

Ball won't divulge names, but she said the stable of donors represents a wide range of opinion on the American right. Increasingly over the years, those conservative donors have been pushing funds towards organizations working to discredit climate science or block climate action.

Donors exhibit sharp differences of opinion on many issues, Ball said. They run the spectrum of conservative opinion, from social conservatives to libertarians. But in opposing mandatory cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, they found common ground.

"Are there both sides of an environmental issue? Probably not," she went on. "Here is the thing. If you look at libertarians, you tend to have a lot of differences on things like defense, immigration, drugs, the war, things like that compared to conservatives. When it comes to issues like the environment, if there are differences, they are not nearly as pronounced."

By 2010, the dark money amounted to $118 million distributed to 102 think tanks or action groups which have a record of denying the existence of a human factor in climate change, or opposing environmental regulations.

The money flowed to Washington think tanks embedded in Republican party politics, obscure policy forums in Alaska and Tennessee, contrarian scientists at Harvard and lesser institutions, even to buy up DVDs of a film attacking Al Gore.

The ready stream of cash set off a conservative backlash against Barack Obama's environmental agenda that wrecked any chance of Congress taking action on climate change.

That's in your backyard mrgybe, were you a donor, or were you at the trough helping slop up the money for lies?

The thoughtful anti global warming people are gaining a lot of credence, over here. Many media 'Science Correspondents' (qualifications not stated, of course - but I doubt they're just the tea boys) are putting what, on the face of, appear to be logical arguments, backed by facts.

One such, in todays paper, makes the obvious point that the world has not warmed as predicted, despitre the explosion in man made CO2 atmospheric pollutrion. i.e. the corrolation as predicted by the climate authorities is not valid.

He quotes reliable sources as back up for his stance - that global warming has been vastly exaggerated. Met office data shows no statistically significant global temp. rise since 1997. The fact, he claims, was confirmed last month by Raj Pachuari, chairman of the U.N. Intergovenmental Panel on Climate Change. (I.P.C.C.) Many climate scientists are now claiming that how much the world may warm must be reduced. (Pachuari himself still disputes this, and says the current pause -and pause it clearly IS - must last for 30 years for him to be convinced otherwise.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum